Pissed off about 7mm RM load data
- Thread starter g-manz35
- Start date
True, but what I'm getting at is that I don't think the Nosler data has heavier charge weights than most other manuals.
I think that it's more a case of Nosler using aftermarket barrels, that produce higher velocities with the same powder charges. Some of their loads were right on the edge for some of my own rifles, yet they usually produced 100-150fps less in factory rifles.
Me, I don't see why component manufacturers even bother to spend tens of thousands of dollars on load development, firing hundreds of rounds through pressure barrels, re-testing their data and then proof reading, re-proofing, and re-reproofing their data. Heck, just let the g-man stuff lots of powder in some cases and let 'er rip. He can read pressure signs, Trust him, he says he can. Why p!$$ around with pressure barrels when you got G-man? At least the Remington is a stout action, with a good gas diversion system when he gets a pressure sign he can't ignore.
The problem I was pointing out is that most of the load data I have read and tested has worked out really well. I've loaded 223 rem, 270 win 7mm-08, 338 WM and 30-30. I have gone over max on a few occasions and when I did I did it very carefully. I'm a novice reloader and very conservative so if I get factory velocity or 100 fps less I'm happy. I just can't deal with getting 250 fps less when I'm using a max load out of a 26" pipe. It just seems like this cartridge is a Bi#$h to load for with data that is all over the map and seemingly very conservative. I guess I will just ignore it all and stuff the cases full! After all I'm the "G-MAN" and I do that sort of thing
On a side note. The gun does seem a bit slow as the factory loads are going 100 fps slower than the factory specs suggest, but I've come to expect that. The think the Chrony is not the problem as I had fired several other loads through it that day. Everything else was fine.
George
Last edited:
Agreed 100%, Look at the .300 WSM
I've never found factory ammo to shoot better than my reloads before. I could take just about any bullet and any powder and get results that I was satisfied with. I reached a bit of a snag on this one so I guess I'd better put on my Big Boy pants, quit whining and put a bit of effort into it. I will maybe try a different powder. It's not my gun or my dollar I'm spending so I will have to let buddy decide.
Thank you for all the constructive replies.
George
Thank you for all the constructive replies.
George
G-manz35, back in the day, I used to develop loads incrementally, and used manuals as a "guide." I thought nothing of using a Powley computer for a start point, maybe interpolate between bullet weights or powder burn rates, you know, 'safely'. In my time, frankly, all the gun-writers did the same, carefully explaining the signs they were looking for, the careful measurements of case-head expansion, delta velocity versus delta charge, primer shape, force to re-size, difficulty with bolt lift, while they sought the fastest, hottest load they could wrinkle out of a new gun, or with a new powder, or whatever. Velocity was truly god.
Then, a couple of ballistic labs started accepting private jobs, wherein a client specified case, primer powder charge, bullet, and, if they thought they could safely shoot it in a calibrated pressure barrel, then, for a few hundred bucks, (calibration is pricey) they would pop enough of the client's caps that they could establish a reliable set of numbers.
Oops. All of a sudden, the gun writers mostly got religion. Those loads that met, exceeded, or just plain blew away factory "specs" very frequently were running 10, 20 thousand psi over SAMMI specs. That's OK for proof loads, but over time, a gun shooting over-pressure loads, but the cases exhibiting no signs of excess pressure, well, the gun just wears out faster.
Oh, there are still a few of the old breed, writing about how they can wring a few extra fps out safely, but with loads they have not taken to a credible lab, but the most of them acknowledge that when they get to book max, they are at SAMMI spec max. Especially, those guys who used to be manufacturer ballisticians.
Me, now, if a load is max in a recent book, I gotta have a very good reason to drop it into a case. Ammo specs on the box are generally a bit closer to true these days, 'cause everyone has a chrono. I guess i kinda rant every time I see someone suggesting that the means available to a hand loader to ascertain his loads are safe - unless they are within book values - when history has shown that such assessments can be so far out as to be actually dangerous. Lots on here disagree, though, and it is a tribute to the engineering of modern firearms that we have so few catastrophic failures.
Then, a couple of ballistic labs started accepting private jobs, wherein a client specified case, primer powder charge, bullet, and, if they thought they could safely shoot it in a calibrated pressure barrel, then, for a few hundred bucks, (calibration is pricey) they would pop enough of the client's caps that they could establish a reliable set of numbers.
Oops. All of a sudden, the gun writers mostly got religion. Those loads that met, exceeded, or just plain blew away factory "specs" very frequently were running 10, 20 thousand psi over SAMMI specs. That's OK for proof loads, but over time, a gun shooting over-pressure loads, but the cases exhibiting no signs of excess pressure, well, the gun just wears out faster.
Oh, there are still a few of the old breed, writing about how they can wring a few extra fps out safely, but with loads they have not taken to a credible lab, but the most of them acknowledge that when they get to book max, they are at SAMMI spec max. Especially, those guys who used to be manufacturer ballisticians.
Me, now, if a load is max in a recent book, I gotta have a very good reason to drop it into a case. Ammo specs on the box are generally a bit closer to true these days, 'cause everyone has a chrono. I guess i kinda rant every time I see someone suggesting that the means available to a hand loader to ascertain his loads are safe - unless they are within book values - when history has shown that such assessments can be so far out as to be actually dangerous. Lots on here disagree, though, and it is a tribute to the engineering of modern firearms that we have so few catastrophic failures.
With all due respect to everyone who is concerned with overpressure loads, there are many factors that make up differences in firearms.
Bore/groove diameter variances; Chamber dimensions; bullet hardness; bearing surface of the projectile; rifling twist rate; barrel length;
freebore dimension; specific throating shape; The list goes on and on.
This simply means that it is highly unlikely that any two rifles will shoot a given load at the exact same velocity.
Add in the fact that some barrels are simply "faster" than are others due to some nuance that is not readily apparent.
If the reloader is practicing good reloading technique, watching for all signs of pressure that is excess, there is little danger.
We hear of those who say their brass stands up well with the load they are using, so must be safe pressures. But is it really?
How many load cases in which the primer pocket loosens within 5 firings or so? This load is probably too hot for the brass/bullet being used thus also in that particular rifle.
How many reloaders actually measure their brass at the solid "head" with a vernier micrometer after each firing of a new load?
A brand new case will always expand somewhat in this area with a load that is of normal pressure, but does the case grow more on subsequent firings? If so, it is too hot for that application.
Another variant is the brass being used. I have noted a trend to early primer pocket loosening using Federal brass. [ditto some Norma brass, but not all]
In such cases, I will back off that load if I must use that brass. A ruptured case in a rifle is not conducive to protecting it, and is disconcerting, even dangerous to the shooter.
Obviously, if one has a short barrel, and is seeing velocities far above the norm with any given load, this should raise a red flag.
Over time, even though it may work well, the firearm will suffer, with a possible disaster lurking somewhere.
We all want to practice our hobby safely, but with performance we can live with.
Many of the reloading manuals have been affected by "lawyeritis", so do not reflect reality.
They are a guide, nothing more, nothing less.
Regards, Eagleye.
Bore/groove diameter variances; Chamber dimensions; bullet hardness; bearing surface of the projectile; rifling twist rate; barrel length;
freebore dimension; specific throating shape; The list goes on and on.
This simply means that it is highly unlikely that any two rifles will shoot a given load at the exact same velocity.
Add in the fact that some barrels are simply "faster" than are others due to some nuance that is not readily apparent.
If the reloader is practicing good reloading technique, watching for all signs of pressure that is excess, there is little danger.
We hear of those who say their brass stands up well with the load they are using, so must be safe pressures. But is it really?
How many load cases in which the primer pocket loosens within 5 firings or so? This load is probably too hot for the brass/bullet being used thus also in that particular rifle.
How many reloaders actually measure their brass at the solid "head" with a vernier micrometer after each firing of a new load?
A brand new case will always expand somewhat in this area with a load that is of normal pressure, but does the case grow more on subsequent firings? If so, it is too hot for that application.
Another variant is the brass being used. I have noted a trend to early primer pocket loosening using Federal brass. [ditto some Norma brass, but not all]
In such cases, I will back off that load if I must use that brass. A ruptured case in a rifle is not conducive to protecting it, and is disconcerting, even dangerous to the shooter.
Obviously, if one has a short barrel, and is seeing velocities far above the norm with any given load, this should raise a red flag.
Over time, even though it may work well, the firearm will suffer, with a possible disaster lurking somewhere.
We all want to practice our hobby safely, but with performance we can live with.
Many of the reloading manuals have been affected by "lawyeritis", so do not reflect reality.
They are a guide, nothing more, nothing less.
Regards, Eagleye.
I've had that same frustration with 2 previous rifles in 7mm Rem Mag. I just recently acquired a Tikka T3 in 7RM and I'm finding RL 22 in the 63 grain range and RL 25 around 68 grains with 160 grain Partitions and Fed 215 primers get me in the 2900 fps bracket. RL 25 shows lots of promise - not done load development with it yet and it shows 2900 fps, 1/2 MOA and still room to load up according to the published data.
I think generally, one needs to temper expectations with this round. Screaming muzzle velocities have seldom in my expereince with this cartridge been conducive to accuracy. I'm finding the real accuracy with 160 projectiles with 7RM is in the 2850 - 2900 FPS bracket but evey rifle will have its own characterisitics and some will give stellar performance with high MV's. With one previous rilfe, 2850 was the sweet spot. Personally, 2900 fps for a 160 Partition into 1/2 MOA is pretty darned good. That will be an effective killer for deer/black bear to elk/moose if that is where I end up with my rifle.
I went with Tikka because I've had one in another calibre before and it was a forgiving rilfe, accurate and easy to load up. After breaking it in, no disappointment so far!
I think generally, one needs to temper expectations with this round. Screaming muzzle velocities have seldom in my expereince with this cartridge been conducive to accuracy. I'm finding the real accuracy with 160 projectiles with 7RM is in the 2850 - 2900 FPS bracket but evey rifle will have its own characterisitics and some will give stellar performance with high MV's. With one previous rilfe, 2850 was the sweet spot. Personally, 2900 fps for a 160 Partition into 1/2 MOA is pretty darned good. That will be an effective killer for deer/black bear to elk/moose if that is where I end up with my rifle.
I went with Tikka because I've had one in another calibre before and it was a forgiving rilfe, accurate and easy to load up. After breaking it in, no disappointment so far!
Last edited:
What he said. My 24" win throws 160 gr barnes As follows 60gr imr4350--2943 63 gr imr 4831--3010 64gr 4831--3025
Well this is not a 7 RM, but I reload my .280 with 160 grain ABs and H4831. I get 2800 fps out of a 22" barrel with 57 grains. I have checked this over different chronys. 2800 is great in my mind for a .280, but I would be seriously disappointed with that in a 7 RM considering a fair amount more case capacity.
Hodgdon lists max as 55 grains, Hornady at something like 53 grains. Sierra lists max at 57 and recommends it as their hunting load. Just goes to show how big of gap there can be in published loads. I find Hornady to have the most "lawyerized" loads by far.
Hodgdon lists max as 55 grains, Hornady at something like 53 grains. Sierra lists max at 57 and recommends it as their hunting load. Just goes to show how big of gap there can be in published loads. I find Hornady to have the most "lawyerized" loads by far.
A hunting load. One that is at least comparable to the Rem 150gr Core Lokt that shoot 3000 fps and 1.5" out of that same gun. To me that means we should be getting at least 2850 fps and the same accuracy. Like I said I'm not really expecting too much. Just some hunting/plinking ammo.
It's bad when you think you set the bar low and your still disappointed.
G
Occasionally, they are one and the same....that's a winner!!
Eagleye.
The best group we got was the hottest we tested so I'm sure we will get something decent the next time out. We loaded up to 1gr over max. (65gr of H4831 over the 162 gr BTSP) I think we will get about 2850 fps.
G
